Archives

Calendar

Author: rikerjoe

A few weeks ago I ran across a very simple puzzle. It is a rule based on a sequence of three numbers. Some sequences obey the rule – and some do not. The challenge is to guess what the rule is. According to the opening paragraph of the article accompanying the test, the test sheds light on government policy, corporate America and why no one likes to be wrong.

The test explores confirmation bias. Were you willing to search for a “No” answer, or did your couch your guesses to give “Yes” answers? In my case, I started with a specific sequence that gave “Yes’s”: A x B = C, and tried a few others that all led to “Yes” as well.

I wondered: are there any sequences that give “No?” So, I took a stab until I got a “No.”

The first “No” answer taught me more than all the “Yes’s” I got before. I kept trying to get “No’s.” In the end, I got 5 “Yes’s” and 7 “No’s”, at which time I decided upon an answer: each number in the sequence is greater than the number before it.

The first lesson I took away is that this test applies to more problems than those dealing with numbers. The basic principle is applicable to many situations we face every day. In the weeks following the test, when I faced a situation and thought I knew the answer, I said to myself, “2, 4, 8.” It’s my self-cue to ask another question.

Another key takeaway: the best questions are those in which I get the opposite of what I was expecting. Such an answer shakes up confirmation bias and tells me something new.

2, 4, 8 – a simple yet powerful test to challenge confirmation bias.

Share this:

Like this:

After a string of successes, SpaceX encountered a setback with the failure of SpaceX CRS-7 mission yesterday. For cargo services to the International Space Station, it has been a somewhat unlucky string of missions. First, the Orbital Sciences Corporation Orb-3 cargo mission failed in October 2014, followed by the Russian Progress M-27M in April 2015. This makes three in the last year.

Regarding the SpaceX CRS-7 mission, here are a few links that cover the failure:

Marcia Smith of the excellent SpacePolicyOnline.com provides a write-up on the preliminary cause of the CRS-7 failure.

Share this:

Like this:

Space enthusiasts everywhere are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope. And it is with good reason. On this day that marks the 25th anniversary of the landing of Shuttle mission STS-31 that delivered HST to orbit, I wish to share a few thoughts and links that make this anniversary special to me.

A few years ago I reflected on how each of the Shuttle missions associated with HST served as a “signpost” to various stages of my career at NASA. Those words from the past are just as relevant today.

Another retrospective is via an interview with Bill Reeves, who served as the Lead Flight Director for Shuttle mission STS-31 that delivered HST to orbit. I had the pleasure of working with Bill in later years before he retired, and his words of reflection on HST illustrate the deeply insightful person that he was at that time, and still is today.

Once Hubble was on orbit, we all knew what happened. Its vision was blurry. The next link recounts the race to save Hubble and its reputation, via an interview with Ed Weiler, who was Hubble Chief Scientist at the time. I later met Ed on two occasions – the first when he was the Associate Administrator of the Office of Space Science at NASA Headquarters, and later when he was the Director of the Goddard Space Flight Center. He’s an interesting fellow with interesting views, some of which are hinted at in this story.

Perhaps the greatest success of Hubble goes beyond the telescope itself. In one way, HST is the perfect example of the blending of art and science. It is the powerful, insightful images from a scientific standpoint coupled with astonishing beauty that strikes a chord with me. Here are some of HST’s most incredible images.

Lastly, in looking outward, HST permits us to look inward. The images of astronauts servicing Hubble on several occasions demonstrate how NASA’s scientific and human endeavors can work together. Beyond that, Hubble has allowed us to learn our place in the universe. For me, the next story brings this to life.

Share this:

Like this:

There is a reason why Canada had long been a popular first step in international expansion of American companies, and for Target it was no different. Numerous restaurant chains, such as Baskin Robbins, Burger King, Dairy Queen, Little Caesars, McDonalds, Popeyes, Quiznos and Wendy’s have been active in Canada for years, some since the 1960s. Retailers were also drawn to Canada: Sears arrived in 1953 through a joint venture, and Costco, Home Depot and Walmart arrived through acquisitions in 1986, 1992, and 1994, respectively. In 2010, more than ten percent of Canadians had shopped Target stores in the United States, and 70 percent of the population was familiar with the Target brand. Therefore, it made sense that Target would be drawn to Canada for its first foray into international expansion.

Target followed the acquisition model established in Canada by Cosco, Home Depot, and Walmart. It purchased the Canadian discount chain Zellers in 2011, and organized Target Canada with headquarters in Mississauga, Ontario. It planned to convert over a hundred of the former Zellers locations into new Target stores. After two years of planning, Target opened its first three stores in Ontario on March 5, 2013. Target rapidly opened stores across Canada over the next 21 months, eventually growing to 133 stores. Yet on January 15, 2015, Target Canada filed for bankruptcy, citing huge losses of over two billion dollars and its inability to meet payroll.

What happened to Target in Canada?

Some news accounts – especially from Canadian sources – blamed differences between the Canadian consumer and the American consumer for Target’s failure. Others blamed Target’s rapid expansion across Canada coupled with its historical shortcomings in supply chain management, along with marketing problems. The problem is that from a strategy standpoint, these are radically different challenges that require completely different strategic treatments. Was Target’s strategy failure in Canada really more of a cultural problem, or an operations management and marketing failure?

To examine the possibility of the former, I’ll broaden the scope beyond cultural concerns and examine the entire CAGE framework, defined by the distance in cultural, administrative, geographic, and economic factors between two countries. A CAGE analysis will tell us whether Target failed to take into account the differences between Canada and the United States in devising its Canadian strategy.

From a geographic standpoint, Canada and the United States share the largest international border in the world, with a length (excluding the Alaskan border) of nearly 4,000 miles. About 75 percent of Canada’s population lives within 100 miles of the border with the United States. The population distribution across Canada somewhat resembles the United States in an east-west sense, with greater densities on the coasts and more scattered population centers in the middle. Therefore, geographic distance between Canada and the United States in the CAGE framework is about as small as it can get; the challenge is one of managing a supply chain that either must address the east-west population distribution within Canada, or manage customs in crossing the border between Canada and the United States. Neither is an unfamiliar strategic problem for any company with supply chain experience.

From an economic standpoint, the cost of labor is generally higher in Canada than in the United States. Minimum wages are higher in Canadian provinces, and the taxation burden is higher. Previous to Target’s entry, the Canadian dollar was weak relative to the US dollar; however, a stronger Canadian dollar and a robust economy following the financial crisis of 2008-09 made the Canadian market very attractive for entry. Supply of real estate is more limited in Canada versus the United States; the number of lenders for retail development is fewer, so access to capital is harder. (This is a reason why many retailers choose to enter through acquisitions–the path chosen by Target in Canada.) Canada’s economy is comprised of regional commercial centers that are far apart, and to some extent, independent of one another. Yet in 2011 sales per square foot in Canadian malls were nearly 50 percent greater than sales per square foot in American malls. Therefore, despite the higher cost of labor and limited real estate market, other economic conditions such as exchange rates and sales per square foot made an entry into Canada very attractive in the early 2010s. (Foreshadowing hint: how Target managed expectations around price differences relative to the different cost structure is a point I’ll discuss later.)

From an administrative standpoint, there are some differences between Canada and the United States in language, labeling and other regulatory requirements. All mandatory labeling information must be in English and French (the official languages of Canada), and measurements must use the metric system. Provincial franchise disclosure laws have a higher requirement for disclosure that can trip up an American company if it is not well versed in those disclosure requirements. Yet Canada follows rule by law just as the United States does. (One of the quaint differences is that lawyers robe in court in Canada, but at least don’t wear wigs.) Although the differences (robes included) can add to costs, none are considered a major impediment to strategy.

Lastly are the cultural differences. Some of Canada’s population hubs are immensely multi-cultural; others are less so. Consumer differences are sometimes driven by the generally colder weather. However, the population distribution and consumer differences are not markedly different than that obtained by taking a northern slice across the United States, and accounting for this difference strategically should have been straightforward for a company founded and headquartered in Minneapolis with a store presence in a similar variety of settings across the United States. Target’s market research prior to its expansion into Canada indicated that customers wanted the “true U.S. Target.” Based on a smart approach to accounting for regional differences and stated consumer preferences, addressing the above cultural differences should not have been an insurmountable strategic problem.

The above CAGE analysis recognizes that Canada does have uniquely Canadian factors. However, none of the CAGE dimensions – cultural, administrative, geographic, and economic – were the key contributing factor to Target’s downfall in Canada. Instead, its downfall was a problem in executing a manageable strategy in operations management, along with a failure in marketing. The company has admitted it botched management of its supply chain with a rapidly expanding store footprint across Canada, which often led to empty shelves. Marketing, long considered Target’s forte, focused too much on conveying the sheen and trendiness of the Target brand. Target took its same “Expect More. Pay Less” tagline to Canada, and it is reasonable the Canadian consumer took that to mean they would expect more and pay less than they did in the United States, now that Target was in Canada! Target augmented its slogan with “Target Loves Canada”, yet failed to set consumer expectations that because the cost structure is slightly higher in Canada, prices would be, too. These are a failing of operations management and marketing strategies that have nothing to do with the CAGE differences between Canada and the United States.

The bottom line is that Target’s customers in Canada wanted the exact same Target they experienced in the United States, and they didn’t get that. Target failed in its operations management and marketing strategies in delivering to its Canadian customers. That is why Target in Canada failed.

Share this:

Like this:

(Plaque hanging ceremony following the end of Space Shuttle mission STS-63. That’s me on the left.)

This week marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of Space Shuttle mission STS-63. A few years ago I wrote a retrospective of that mission. It’s worth revisiting in light of the anniversary this week, and the significance of that mission to the short-term evolution of NASA’s human spaceflight endeavors.

With the return to flight in 1988 following the Challenger accident in 1986, NASA’s Space Shuttle missions were focused on the exploration of low Earth orbit. Numerous scientific missions were flown in the following years, consisting of laboratories in the Space Shuttle cargo bay or in satellites that were deployed and retrieved by the Space Shuttle. I cut my teeth in orbital rendezvous during this period, focusing on developing piloting procedures for flying the Space Shuttle and understanding its onboard guidance and navigation systems. During the late 1980’s and early 1990’s we knew that eventually we would start construction of the space station. At the time, we didn’t know when.

The fall of the former Soviet Union played a key role in shifting US space policy and implementation in human spaceflight. The new Russia that emerged and the United States forged a cooperative space policy, one in which the United States would fly Russian cosmonauts onboard the Space Shuttle, and Russia would host US astronauts onboard its second generation space station, Mir. STS-63 marked the first mission of the Space Shuttle to Mir, executing a “dress rehearsal” of the rendezvous and docking of the two spacecraft. Building relationships between former adversaries was a big challenge and a quantum shift in how one viewed the future of human spaceflight. Rather than individual nationalistic efforts, the Shuttle-Mir program demonstrated that long-term international cooperative efforts are possible. Despite the huge CAGE distance between the United States and Russia, the program paved the way for the current International Space Station.

From a personal standpoint, it is rather remarkable that as an early-career engineer, I would get the opportunity to be in the forefront of overcoming obstacles, forging relationships, and demonstrating the incredible possibilities of international cooperative efforts in space – one that continues to this day. As I look back on this special anniversary of Space Shuttle mission STS-63, I see how far we’ve come. How far we go is up to us.

Share this:

Like this:

Hard to believe I started LeadingSpace six years ago this month. Time flies.

Looking over the history of LeadingSpace and its 180 articles to date, I note that my writing focus has shifted with time, with several distinct phases. When I started LeadingSpace in 2009, I was leading a team of professionals charged with figuring out a strategy on how to keep two of NASA’s key facilities operating with the impending end of the Space Shuttle Program. I chose to use LeadingSpace as a vehicle to share my experiences in transitioning to a new leadership role, learning the specific situation at hand, and getting to know the people involved. In 2009 this was the primary focus of LeadingSpace, with an occasional new contribution since. The topic of Team Leadership marks the first phase of LeadingSpace.

Hints in late 2009 of changes to come in human spaceflight policy were unveiled in early 2010 with the cancellation of the Constellation Program, leading to uncertainty and debates over space policy and implementation. Some of that initial uncertainty spilled over into my work life. Consequently, much of the focus of my writing shifted from team leadership situations into dealing with change.

Leading change and defining a value proposition for human spaceflight mark the second phase of LeadingSpace.

Starting in 2012, with my personal focus directed towards working on an Executive MBA under a two-year fellowship, I wrote a bit less. I tended to post quick blurbs on current topics. Towards the end of the two-year sabbatical I wrote a few pieces applying some of the operations management and federal budgeting principles I learned in the EMBA program.

What will the future hold for LeadingSpace? It could be many things, and I have a lot of options. An ambitious project I have on my to-do list is to meld the human spaceflight value proposition series with the Strategizing for NASA series. Also, judging by pageviews the Transactional, Transitional, and Transformational Change post is by far the most popular piece I’ve written. Perhaps that indicates a hunger for information on dealing with change. I’m also drawn to matters of strategy in a broader context than human spaceflight, such as the recent decision by Target to exit the Canadian market. I have a draft post written on that. I also could return to the roots of LeadingSpace and write about my current experiences in a new role, which today deal with building a supply web of data and processes for planning, training, and executing NASA’s future Exploration missions. This would entail an interesting topical mix of influence leadership, operations management, and federal budgeting.

In other words, the future looks very promising for LeadingSpace. I hope you don’t mind that I take you where the wind blows.